EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

04.19.10

The SEC is Going After Microsoft (Again), Not Just Goldman Sachs

Posted in Finance, Fraud, Microsoft, Search, Steve Ballmer at 6:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

US Securities and Exchange Commission Seal

Summary: The SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) contacts Steve Ballmer regarding oddities in Microsoft’s latest financial report

WE WISH to begin with factual background that a lot of people are unaware of. A few months ago, right around the time that Microsoft's CFO quit he was also paid millions of dollars by Microsoft to keep his mouth shut. This is not a standard transaction. This could indicate malpractice and there is reason for prejudice because the SEC previously caught and investigated Microsoft for financial fraud (Microsoft eventually settled), after a Microsoft employee, Charles Pancerzewski, had blown the whistle and presented to the judge convincing evidence of fraud taking place at Microsoft. Microsoft paid Pancerzewski millions of dollars to shut him up and eliminate his evidence [1, 2]. It’s a typical maneuver from Microsoft, which also hires/pays critics to walk away and not share their knowledge with the public. We gave several examples of this before.

A few days ago we wrote about Microsoft’s close relationship with US banks/the Fed, which are aflood with misconduct these days. They contact Microsoft for help brainwashing the public [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], as we noted some days ago when we wrote about the SEC suing Goldman Sachs for fraud. For those who have not read that previous post, Microsoft’s CEO was asked to create a seasonly game to teach the public about deficit crunching (Microsoft too has debt) and as this new article shows, using games to brainwash minds is not out of the ordinary (war games are the most famous example).

PepsiCo International and Microsoft have teamed up to create an integrated digital advergaming campaign to take advantage of what’s expected to be increasing interest in soccer as the World Cup gets underway.

But anyway, here is the interesting development. Pogson has found this document [PDF] buried inside the SEC’s Web site. Since it is available as a PDF, we decided to append it at the bottom as plain text. Microsoft’s response is an HTML-formatted mail and here is what Pogson makes of it:

Then, in the last quarterly report, M$ combined that other OS and “live” segments. I guess they thought a zigzag in the curve would hide something like the inflection in the client OS stuff. Further, internally, they use a different set of books, omitting some important details. So, investors should be comforted knowing that internal decisions are made on false assumptions. We have known for years that including the browser in the OS was done not for good business reasons but to exclude competition from the market. I guess that other search engine is more of the same.

There is actually more to it because Microsoft is ‘embellishing’ its numbers by deferring revenue, for example [1, 2, 3, 4]. One writer asks about Microsoft: “Are we seeing a revival?” Well, only if Microsoft’s lies are being believed because in the previous quarter just about any business unit at Microsoft was down. Yes, it was mostly down, but Microsoft claims a surge.

Let me be clear. I’m not a fan of Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT). I dislike its products and I don’t much like its business policies. I’m a child of the open source world and a fan of cloud computing, and Microsoft has long been a dirty word as far as I’m concerned. It’s probably a dirty word as far as many investors are concerned.

Wallstcheatsheet.com, which is another news site, has just published the article “Proof Microsoft has Become Irrelevant” and it says:

If this keeps up [for Bing] , Microsoft may want to rename it ‘Ding’ because that’s how big an impact they’ve had in the search space.

For the moment, Kin and Bing are not making huge waves.

We wrote about it in the previous post. Bing as a “success” is part of an illusion Microsoft is spreading and Kin is a major disappointment which we’ll address in the next post. There is more to Microsoft’s financial reports than meets the eye. Don’t believe what you see next week when Microsoft releases another report and immediately spins it as “success”. Microsoft is not honest about its financial situation.



Mail Stop 4561
                                                             December 11, 2009
Mr. Steven A. Ballmer
Director and Chief Executive Officer
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way,
Redmond, Washington 98052-6399

        Re:    Microsoft Corporation
               Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009
               Filed July 30, 2009
               01-14278

Dear Mr. Ballmer:
        We have reviewed the above-referenced filing and have the following comments.
Please be as detailed as necessary in your explanation. After reviewing this information,
we may raise additional comments.

        Please understand that the purpose of our review process is to assist you in your
compliance with the applicable disclosure requirements and to enhance the overall
disclosure in your filing. We look forward to working with you in these respects. We
welcome any questions you may have about our comments or any other aspect of our
review. Feel free to call us at the telephone numbers listed at the end of this letter.
Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations

Segment Product Revenue/Operating Income (Loss)
Online Services Business, page 25

1.      We note that the operating loss for your Online Services Business increased by
        102% and 84% in 2008 and 2009, respectively, and is a significant portion of your


Mr. Steven Ballmer Microsoft Corporation December 11, 2009 Page 2 consolidated operating income in 2009. Tell us whether these increasing losses are indicative of future results and the consideration given to identifying and quantifying any related known trends, events and uncertainties that would reasonably be expected to have a material impact on your liquidity, capital resources and/or results of operations. Refer to Item 303(A) (3) (ii) of Regulation S-K and Section III.B.3 of SEC Release 34-48960. Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data Note 22. Segment Information and Geographic Data, page 77 2. Tell us what consideration you gave to reporting revenue from external customers for each of your products and services or each group of similar product and services in accordance with paragraph 37 of SFAS 131. 3. You indicate that your financial reporting systems provide more than one measure of segment profit and loss for management to operate the business, including internal profit and loss statements prepared on a basis not consistent with U.S. GAAP. Tell us what consideration you gave to reporting the segment information that is most consistent with that used in your consolidated financial statements. In this regard, we note that the segment information provided beginning on page 23 is presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Refer to paragraph 30 of SFAS 131. 4. We note your statement that segments are not designed to measure operating income or loss directly related to the products included in each segment, due to your integrated business structure. Further explain this assertion and tell us what operating costs are excluded from each segment. In light of this apparent limitation of the data, indicate how the segment information presented is reliable and relevant to users of your financial statements. 5. You state that “inter-segment cost commissions are estimated by management and used to compensate or charge each segment for such shared costs and to incent shared efforts.” Clarify for us what is meant by these estimated inter-segment cost commissions and tell us what consideration you gave to describing in the note the basis of measuring this allocation. Also, clarify what is meant by allocating cost commission “to incent shared efforts.” Explain your basis for determining the appropriate amounts that will provide motivation and justify why management believes the allocation methodology is reasonable. Refer to paragraphs 25(b) and 29 of SFAS 131. ******* Please respond to these comments within 10 business days or tell us when you will provide us with a response. Please submit all correspondence and supplemental
Mr. Steven Ballmer Microsoft Corporation December 11, 2009 Page 3 materials on EDGAR as required by Rule 101 of Regulation S-T. If you amend your filing, you may wish to provide us with marked copies of any amendment to expedite our review. Please furnish a cover letter that keys your response to our comments and provides any requested information. Detailed cover letters greatly facilitate our review. Please understand that we may have additional comments after reviewing any amendment and your response to our comments. We urge all persons who are responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of the disclosure in the filing to be certain that the filing includes all information required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that they have provided all information investors require for an informed investment decision. Since the company and its management are in possession of all facts relating to a company’s disclosure, they are responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of the disclosures they have made. In connection with responding to our comments, please provide, in writing, a statement from the company acknowledging that: • the company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the filing; • staff comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing; and • the company may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States. In addition, please be advised that the Division of Enforcement has access to all information you provide to the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance in our review of your filing or in response to our comments on your filing. You may contact Melissa Walsh, Staff Accountant, at (202) 551-3224 if you have any questions regarding comments on the financial statements and related matters. If you need further assistance, you may contact me at (202) 551-3226 Sincerely, Craig D. Wilson Sr. Asst. Chief Accountant

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

2 Comments

  1. your_friend said,

    April 21, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    Gravatar

    It’s about time the SEC got on Microsoft and their letter is quite a slap down on the usual monkey business. Well done, SEC, please follow up.

  2. uberVU - social comments said,

    April 25, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Identica by schestowitz: The #SEC is Going After #Microsoft (Again), Not Just #GoldmanSachs http://ur1.ca/vvaf #finance #fraud #regulation #steveballmer…

What Else is New


  1. PatentShield is Not the Solution and It Won't Protect Google/Android From Patent Trolls Like Microsoft's

    A new initiative called "PatentShield" is launched, but it's yet another one of those many initiatives (Peer-to-Patent and the likes of it, LOT Network, OIN, PAX etc.) that serve to distract from the real and much simpler solutions



  2. Patent Quality Crisis and Unprecedented Trouble at the European Patent Office (EPO) Negatively Affect Legitimate Companies in the US As Well

    The granting en masse of questionable patents by the EPO (patent maximalism) is becoming a liability and growing risk to companies which operate not only in Europe but also elsewhere



  3. Blog 'Takeovers' by Bristows and Then Censorship: Now This Firm Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC) and Then Deletes Comments That Point Out the Errors

    Not only are Bristows employees grabbing the mic in various high-profile IP blogs for the purpose of UPC promotion (by distortion of facts); they also actively suppress critics of the UPC



  4. Links 25/4/2017: Kali Linux 2017.1 Released, NSA Back Doors in Windows Cause Chaos

    Links for the day



  5. Astoundingly, IP Kat Has Become a Leading Source of UPC and Battistelli Propaganda

    The pro-UPC outlets, which enjoy EPO budget (i.e. stakeholders' money), are becoming mere amplifiers of Benoît Battistelli and his right-hand UPC woman Margot Fröhlinger, irrespective of actual facts



  6. EPO Fiasco to be Discussed in German Local Authority (Bavarian Parliament) Some Time Today as the Institution Continues Its Avoidable Collapse

    Conflict between management and staff -- a result of truly destructive strategies and violations of the law by Benoît Battistelli -- continues to escalate and threatens to altogether dismantle the European Patent Office (EPO)



  7. In the US and Elsewhere, Qualcomm's Software Patents Are a Significant Tax Everyone Must Pay

    The state of the mobile market when companies such as Qualcomm, which don't really produce anything, take a large piece of the revenue pie



  8. In South Asia, Old Myths to Promote Patent Maximalism, Courtesy of the Patent Microcosm

    The latest example of software patents advocacy and patent 'parades' in India, as well as something from IPOS in Singapore



  9. Links 24/4/2017: Linux 4.11 RC8, MPV 0.25

    Links for the day



  10. Why Authorities in the Netherlands Need to Strip the EPO of Immunity and Investigate Fire Safety Violations

    How intimidation and crackdown on the staff representatives at the EPO may have led to lack of awareness (and action) about lack of compliance with fire safety standards



  11. Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part IX: Testament to the Fear of an Autocratic Regime

    A return to the crucial observation and a reminder of the fact that at the EPO it takes great courage to say the truth nowadays



  12. For the Fordham Echo Chamber (Patent Maximalism), Judges From the EPO Boards of Appeal Are Not Worth Entertaining

    In an event steered if not stuffed by patent radicals such as Bristows and Microsoft (abusive, serial litigators) there are no balanced panels or even reasonable discussions



  13. EPO Staff Representatives Fired Using “Disciplinary Committee That Was Improperly Composed” as Per ILO's Decision

    The Board of the Administrative Council at European Patent Organisation is being informed of the union-busting activities of Battistelli -- activities that are both illegal (as per national and international standards) and are detrimental to the Organisation



  14. Links 23/4/2017: End of arkOS, Collabora Office 5.3 Released

    Links for the day



  15. Intellectual Discovery and Microsoft Feed Patent Trolls Like Intellectual Ventures Which Then Strategically Attack Rivals

    Like a swarm of blood-sucking bats, patent trolls prey on affluent companies that derive their wealth from GNU/Linux and freedom-respecting software (Free/libre software)



  16. The European Patent Office Has Just Killed a Cat (or Skinned a 'Kat')

    The EPO’s attack on the media, including us, resulted in a stream of misinformation and puff pieces about the EPO and UPC, putting at risk not just European democracy but also corrupting the European press



  17. Yann Ménière Resorts to Buzzwords to Recklessly Promote Floods of Patents, Dooming the EPO Amid Decline in Patent Applications

    Battistelli's French Chief Economist is not much of an economist but a patent maximalist toeing the party line of Monsieur Battistelli (lots of easy grants and litigation galore, for UPC hopefuls)



  18. Even Patent Bullies Like Microsoft and Facebook Find the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Useful

    Not just companies accused of patent infringement need the PTAB but also frequent accusers with deep pockets need the PTAB, based on some new figures and new developments



  19. Links 21/4/2017: Qt Creator 4.2.2, ROSA Desktop Fresh R9

    Links for the day



  20. At the EPO, Seeding of Puff Piece in the Press/Academia Sometimes Transparent Enough to View

    The EPO‘s PR team likes to 'spam' journalists and others (for PR) and sometimes does this publicly, as the tweets below show — a desperate recruitment and reputation laundering drive



  21. Affordable and Sophisticated Mobile Devices Are Kept Away by Patent Trolls and Aggressors That Tax Everything

    The war against commoditisation of mobile computing has turned a potentially thriving market with fast innovation rates into a war zone full of patent trolls (sometimes suing at the behest of large companies that hand them patents for this purpose)



  22. In Spite of Lobbying and Endless Attempts by the Patent Microcosm, US Supreme Court Won't Consider Any Software Patent Cases Anymore (in the Foreseeable Future)

    Lobbyists of software patents, i.e. proponents of endless litigation and patent trolls, are attempting to convince the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to have another look at abstract patents and reconsider its position on cases like Alice Corp. v CLS Bank International



  23. Expect Team UPC to Remain in Deep Denial About the Unitary Patent/Unified Court (UPC) Having No Prospects

    The prevailing denial that the UPC is effectively dead, courtesy of sites and blogs whose writers stood to profit from the UPC



  24. EPO in 2017: Erroneously Grant a Lot of Patents in Bulk or Get Sacked

    Quality of patent examination is being abandoned at the EPO and those who disobey or refuse to play along are being fired (or asked to resign to avoid forced resignations which would stain their record)



  25. Links 21/4/2017: System76 Entering Phase Three, KDE Applications 17.04, Elive 2.9.0 Beta

    Links for the day



  26. Bristows-Run IP Kat Continues to Spread Lies to Promote the Unitary Patent (UPC) and Advance the EPO Management's Agenda

    An eclectic response to some of the misleading if not villainous responses to the UPC's death knell in the UK, as well as other noteworthy observations about think tanks and misinformation whose purpose is to warp the patent system so that it serves law firms, for the most part at the expense of science and technology



  27. Links 20/4/2017: Tor Browser 6.5.2, PacketFence 7.0, New Firefox and Chrome

    Links for the day



  28. Patents on Business Methods and Software Are Collapsing, But the Patent Microcosm is Working Hard to Change That

    The never-ending battle over patent law, where those who are in the business of patents push for endless patenting, is still ongoing and resistance/opposition is needed from those who actually produce things (other than litigation) or else they will be perpetually taxed by parasites



  29. IAM, the Patent Trolls' Voice, is Trying to Deny There is a Growing Trolling Problem in Europe

    IAM Media (the EPO's and trolls' mouthpiece) continues a rather disturbing pattern of propaganda dressed up as "news", promoting the agenda of parasites who drain the economy by extortion of legitimate (producing) companies



  30. The Patent Microcosm Keeps Attacking Every Patent Office/System That is Doing the Right Thing

    Patent 'radicals' and 'extremists' -- those to whom patents are needed solely for the purpose of profit from bureaucracy -- fight hard against patent quality and in the process they harm everyone, including individual customers


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts